This essay argues that Acts is essentially kerygmatic in its literary texture and purpose. It assumes that literary purpose, even genre to some extent, can be determined by examining how language is used in two respects: (1) through the authorial voice of the narrative, and (2) by the direct speech of characters within the story. This is especially the case when there is a strong convergence in the pattern of usage in the narrative voice and the dialogical voice. Three literary aspects are investigated: (1) kerygmatic vocabulary, (2) the speeches, and (3) the expression ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ/ὁ λόγος τοῦ κυρίου. The operative kerygmatic vocabulary in Acts is displayed in two appendices containing statistical information comparing Lukan usage with other NT writings.

In NTS 62.3 (July 2016) David Horrell argued that certain passages in 1 Corinthians 7 and 1 Peter 3 showed ‘ethnicising’ traits among the early Christians. He set this result against an alleged trend in scholarship that would distinguish and disparage a closed ethnic Judaism in relation to a new spiritual-universal Christianity. The present authors’ work was proffered as representative of this trend, even though no evidence was cited for such a connection and their work moves in a very different direction. Leaving aside Horrell's interpretation of the New Testament passages for reasons of space, this article takes up the larger question of Judaean and Christ-movement identities by reconsidering the position of Ioudaioi and Christ-followers in the early Roman Empire. Using different but convergent (social-scientific and historical-philological) methods, we find that ethnos-language was everywhere applied to the Judaeans, that this reflected normalcy and exchange with the world, and that Judaeans thus met the criteria of an ethnic group. Early Christians had no such recognised place. Their voluntary associations largely rejected ethnos- and polis-commitment or identity. Neither Judaean openness to the world nor Christian alienation supports the position that Horrell attributes to us.

This article argues that the expression ‘to the end of the earth’ in Acts 1.8, while not referring to one specific geographical location, as has often been argued in contemporary scholarship on Acts, is best understood as a way of (re)ordering the world geographically and, therefore, ideologically. Drawing on Greco-Roman geographical and literary conventions, the article suggests that the author of Acts invites the work's readers to look at the world in a new way, with Jerusalem and the gospel emanating from it as its centre – and the rest, including Rome, as its ideological (and therefore geographical) periphery. In this way, Acts proceeds to renegotiate the ‘world-view’ of its readers in an intercultural and subversive way.

The logion of Matt 11.27 (// Luke 10.22) – ‘All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him’ – has long been considered a ‘Johannine meteorite in the Synoptic sky’ and, after fierce exegetical battles, a sort of ‘foreign body’ in both Matthean and Lukan theological projects. This paper intends to question this assumption on the basis of recent works both on the historical Jesus and on Synoptic theology. It suggests that this verse not only fits very well with the theological and literary project of the Synoptics’ authors but can also shed some light on Jesus’ theology of creation. The way Jesus articulates his own special relationship to ‘his father’ with the human relationship of God's children to ‘their father’ is coherent with the theology implied by this logion.

Why does Paul use the pronoun ἐγώ, which usually does not affect sense (adequately indicated by a first person singular verb)? The standard explanation, that ἐγώ supplies emphasis, is incomplete at best. A detailed survey of Paul's usage shows various factors: sometimes ἐγώ helps Paul distinguish himself from others, and other times to align himself with them; sometimes it allows a paradoxical construction in which Paul both admits and denies that he has done something; sometimes it seems linked to certain verbs; sometimes it supplies a kind of rhythm to a passage.

The present study of the oldest and most relevant extant manuscripts that contain 1 Cor 14.33b–35 shows that v. 33b (ὡς ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων) is not connected with vv. 34–5. Scribes would consider 33b to be a part of 33a. Manuscripts א, A, B, Fuldensis, D, F, G, ms. 88* clearly read 1 Cor 14.34–5 as a separate paragraph. In these manuscripts, where vv. 34–5 are found after v. 40, v. 33b closely follows 33a. P46 and P123 are damaged and require reconstruction. Moreover, Greek New Testament editions that link v. 33b with v. 34 reflect exegetical decisions and are not based on external evidence.

In recent years, a number of New Testament and early Christian scholars have begun to use cognitive science approaches in their work. In this paper, I situate those efforts within the larger framework of the changing humanities, and the increased interest among humanistic scholars and social scientists in drawing on the growing body of knowledge on the cognitive and evolutionary roots of human thinking and behaviour. I also suggest how cognitive historiography can be helpful in shedding new light on issues discussed by New Testament scholars, by elaborating a case study: an analysis of the rite introduced by John the Baptist.

While the vast majority of manuscripts portray Jesus in Mark 1.41 as ‘moved to compassion’ (σπλαγχνισθείς) before healing a leper, five putative witnesses in three languages depict him ‘becoming angry’ (ὀργισθείς/iratus). Following Hort's dictum that ‘knowledge of documents should precede final judgments on readings’, this article offers the first thorough examination of the witnesses to ‘anger’, with the result that the sole putative Syriac witness is dismissed, the Old Latin witnesses are geographically isolated, and the sole Greek witness linked to the Old Latin as a Greek–Latin diglot. Since the final grounds for Jesus’ ‘anger’, that it is the lectio difficilior, also prove insubstantial, σπλαγχνισθείς is concluded to be original, with ‘anger’ originating in the Old Latin manuscript tradition.

The usual understanding of Gaius in Rom 16.23 as a ‘host’ of the Corinthian Christ group (or the host of travellers to Corinth) is fraught with several difficulties: it implausibly renders ξένος as ‘host’ rather than the much more common ‘guest’; it fails to explain why a ‘host’ would have been named so far down Paul's list of those sending greetings; and it fails to explain why Paul refers to this person by his praenomen instead of the more common cognomen. Gaius is not a Corinthian ‘host’, but a Roman ‘guest’ of the Christ group in Corinth. This also implies that Gaius is not a wealthy patron of the Christ group at Corinth.

Genre looms large in contemporary Lukan scholarship. While many scholars are content to label Luke as biography and Acts as history, others argue that both volumes must belong to a single genre. This solution preserves the generic unity of Luke-Acts by shoehorning one or both volumes into ill-fitting categories; such a move only makes sense within an understanding of genre-as-classification. By exploring recent scholarship on genre and privileging ancient practice over ancient theory, we propose reading Luke-Acts as a unified narrative influenced by and modelled after a wide range of Greek prose narratives, rather than representing one genre in particular.

At Luke 10.17, most modern critical editions incorrectly cite the wording of P45 as ἑβδομήκοντα δύο (72) instead of ἑβδομήκοντα (70). As this is one of the two oldest witnesses to the verse, this revision of external evidence calls for a fresh examination of the textual problem as a whole. Previous discussions have focused almost exclusively on the perceived symbolic values of ἑβδομήκοντα (+ δύο) to identify the ‘more Lukan’ wording, but this essay argues on the basis of new transcriptional evidence that the earlier reading is more likely ἑβδομήκοντα δύο.

This essay is a social-scientific study of Paul's deployment of holiness language in 1 Corinthians. Specifically, an interpretation of holiness is offered to explain Paul's argument in 1 Cor 7.12–16 in favour of non-separation in the case of a believer married to a non-believer. For Paul, holiness involves participation in the oneness of God interpreted christologically. This participation is embodied in the holiness-as-oneness of the church. In relations between believers and unbelievers, purity rules to do with sex and marriage carry a significant symbolic burden. In some cases, clear lines of demarcation are drawn. Other cases constitute grey areas; and the suggestion here is that ‘mixed marriages’ are one such. For Paul, holiness is a matter of neither genealogical nor cultic purity. Rather, it has a boundary-transcending quality. In the case of a mixed marriage, the unbelieving partner, together with the children, is sanctified by remaining in oneness with the believing partner. Paul's concern for the oneness of the church spills over into a concern for the oneness of the household.

Recent narrative critical studies of the religious authorities in the Fourth Gospel have proposed, first, that the term ‘Jews’ has only one meaning in the Gospel and, second, that ‘the Jews’ and ‘the Pharisees’ constitute a single group character. However, when viewed from a different perspective, the term ‘Jews’ can be said to have three different meanings in the Gospel. Moreover, when viewed from this perspective, the various usages exhibit a remarkable consistency, one not evident when all instances are thought to have the same meaning. If only those instances of ‘the Jews’ that refer to religious authorities are studied from the point of view of narrative analysis, their character exhibits a great homogeneity but at the same time contrasts consistently with the portrayal of the character of ‘the Pharisees’ (together with ‘the chief priests’ and ‘rulers’). This article describes eight ways in which the character of the religious authorities is portrayed differently (and in a contrasting manner) in the two sets of terms, thus indicating that not all instances of the term ‘Jews’ have the same meaning and that the terms for religious authorities do not constitute a single group character, thus raising substantial questions about the proper method for interpreting these texts within the Gospel.

This article foregrounds a fact so basic that it often goes unnoticed: stories frequently depict the acts of reading and/or interpreting stories; many narratives are themselves concerned with proper modes of narrative interpretation. I contend that such scenes work rhetorically to inculcate particular kinds of hermeneutical skills in their audiences, and thus can be read as pedagogical scenarios vis-à-vis implied readers. I begin the article by introducing the contemporary notion of narrative reflexivity and situating that concept within the broader literary sub-field of rhetorical narratology. Then, I turn to Acts 8.26–40 as a brief case study in order to demonstrate how narrative reflexivity can help us to think in fresh ways about the pedagogical force of ancient narratives. Specifically, I argue that this story in Acts reflexively commends the following hermeneutical principle for its readers: because reading is not synonymous with understanding, one ought to have an authoritative interpretive guide, and embrace a hermeneutic of hospitality towards the received narrative. Finally, I highlight several examples from ancient literature that demonstrate why my proposed reading coheres with ancient views about pedagogy and textual interpretation more broadly.

Much Petrine scholarship has focused on unravelling the Enochic traditions in 1 Pet 3.18–20. However, these investigations have largely overlooked the role of Noah and the flood in 1 Peter. This article seeks to rectify this deficiency by examining how Second Temple Jewish and early Christian texts used the primeval flood as a paradigm for the eschaton, a clear example of Urzeit/Endzeit correspondence. Once the Petrine use of the flood traditions is interpreted in this light, new solutions emerge not only for this difficult text, but also for the larger section of 1 Peter 3–4. Four specific points of correspondence are investigated: first, the righteousness of Noah as the righteousness of Christ (and also, believers); second, the wickedness of the flood generation as the wickedness of contemporary Gentile society; third, Noah's preaching to the flood generation as believers’ witness to their countrymen; and finally, the opportunity of repentance during Noah's lifetime as a similar opportunity for mission in contemporary Asia Minor. A robust understanding of the Noah traditions paves the way for a clearer understanding of the apocalyptic character of 1 Peter and its contemporary application to the Christians of Asia Minor.

On the basis of the semantics of ἀνίστημι and ἐγείρω and the nature of resurrected bodies in ancient Judaism and ancient paganism, one can conclude that Paul could not have conceived of a resurrection of Jesus unless he believed the tomb was empty.

This article investigates the object of faith in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and argues that the object of faith is God and not Jesus. God is the object of faith in Hebrews because God is the one who holds the power of resurrection, the eschatological hope of both the faithful one par excellence (Jesus) and those who follow him. The author of Hebrews expects his persecuted community to place their faith in God in hope of being raised with Jesus, the resurrected faithful one who also placed his faith in God.

The perspective on the Pastoral Epistles presented in this paper differs from the established scholarly consensus and moves beyond the controversy concerning pseudonymity versus authenticity. After examining the development of the ‘Corpus Pastorale’ theory and clarifying some methodological questions, the paper argues for an interpretation of the Pastorals separately from each other and in their specific relation to Paul and his tradition. Significant examples indicate the possibility of understanding 2 Timothy and Titus as authentic letters of Paul, whereas 1 Timothy proves to belong to the second century ce. From this perspective, many otherwise contradictory aspects of the history of interpretation regain their rationale.

In depicting an apocalyptic expectation of the revelation of God's children (Rom 8.19–23), Paul personifies ‘creation’: awaiting the revelation of these children, she ‘groans and suffers pains of childbirth’. While Paul's vision is framed with scriptural allusions, Greek and Roman images of Earth Mother also provide a relevant juxtaposition. This study recovers such a context by surveying sources ranging from Hesiod's Gaia to the Roman Terra Mater. Philo provides an especially relevant comparative model, as he relates biblical cosmology to Greek mythological sources and asserts that earth's role as mother is also attested in Genesis. In light of these comparisons, fresh insights emerge: maternal creation gives birth to a new divine era, yet for Paul this remains a future hope rather than a past (mythological) or present (political) occurrence.

Mary, Thecla, Perpetua and Felicitas are often seen as female exempla both in the early Christian world and in their modern reception. They are considered model teachers, martyrs and apostles, and counter-cultural as they surpass the normative gender hierarchy. Yet, the texts that tell their stories are not so clear-cut. In characterising their protagonists, they repeatedly place them in sexualized or subordinate roles – they are condescended to, distrusted and exhibited. In the end, the women are favoured by the divine but hold little power over their male peers. Even as these texts appear to challenge the patriarchal society from which they stem, they reinscribe it.